Six theists vs. one atheist on Larry King Live

[Tricky]

I was channel surfing last night when I saw something you rarely see on TV. It was Larry King and he had a panel of people discussing the question, "What happens after we die." Much to my surprise, King asked the hard questions, and not at all to my surprise, the theists (one catholic, one protestant, one evangelical, one "spiritual", one Jew and one Muslim) all fumbled it badly. Only the atheist directly and rationally answered the questions.

A lot of what they said has been debated here, but in case anyone is interested, here's the transcript. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html)

[Mercutio]

Didn't Monty Python already explore the topic, with a panel of dead guests? Seems to me they would have greater expertise...

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Didn't Monty Python already explore the topic, with a panel of dead guests? Seems to me they would have greater expertise...
*picks up derail and runs with it*
Good evening. Tonight on 'Is There' we examine the question, 'Is there a life after death?'. And here to discuss it are three dead people... The late Sir Brian Hardacre, former curator of the Imperial War Museum ... (superimposed captions identify them) the late Professor Thynne, until recently an academic, critic, and broadcaster ... and putting the view of the Church of England, the very late Prebendary Reverend Ross. Gentlemen, is there a life after death or not? Sir Brian? (silence) Professor? ... Prebendary?.... Well there we have it, three say no.

[Ipecac]

That wasn't too bad. What the heck happened to King? He seems to have snapped out of his stupidity haze.

[Kaylee]

I think they all answered rationally within the framework of their beliefs. I have no comment on the rationality of the panelists' individual beliefs.

Just curious. I think most people at JREFs subscribe to the philosophy of determinism? For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves?

Hope this question isn't considered a derail… If it is, feel free to ignore it.

Were those dead panelists in one of the Monty Python movies? Sounds funny! I'd like to watch it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Tricky
I was channel surfing last night when I saw something you rarely see on TV. It was Larry King and he had a panel of people discussing the question, "What happens after we die." Much to my surprise, King asked the hard questions, and not at all to my surprise, the theists (one catholic, one protestant, one evangelical, one "spiritual", one Jew and one Muslim) all fumbled it badly. Only the atheist directly and rationally answered the questions.

A lot of what they said has been debated here, but in case anyone is interested, here's the transcript. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/14/lkl.01.html) Ooh boy that must have been real tough! ... "When you're dead you're dead." :D

But then again, you could be dead wrong?

[cbish]

Shera wrote:For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves? I don't know if anyone here really expects that. It's just that most people here were in that situation and chose a different path.

"When you're dead you're dead."

But then again, you could be dead wrong? No!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Shera
I think they all answered rationally within the framework of their beliefs. I have no comment on the rationality of the panelists' individual beliefs.
No, not completely. The evangelical in particular had problems. To counter the theodicy problem, he said that 911, like all evil in the world, came from men. When it was pointed out that the tsuami was in no way caused by men, he had to backtrack. But all of them answered in ways I had heard before, which might fit the framework of their beliefs, but, as you suggest, the beliefs themselves may not be rational.

Originally posted by Shera
Just curious. I think most people at JREFs subscribe to the philosophy of determinism? For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves?
That question actually came up.
king: I believe most of our faith are faiths of our parents? We didn't go out and study comparative religion, right? Your father was Protestant, I'll bet.

MACARTHUR: Yes. My father was actually a pastor and still alive.

KING: You're Catholic, you're Jewish. You're from Muslims. Mary Ann, what was your father?

WILLIAMSON: I'm Jewish. I'm Jewish. I'm Jewish.

KING: You're Jewish. Ellen, were you raised Jewish, Ellen?

JOHNSON: No, my parents were not religious, of course.

KING: Why of course?

JOHNSON: If the panel at all fits.

KING: They could have been and you could have broken away.

JOHNSON: Because everybody going down the panel there -- if they're religious this, they he had a religious upbringing. I'm an atheist and I was brought up in a nonreligious household.

HATHOUT: However you can be brought up in certain religions, but certain things happen in your life to either confirm or do away with your religion. So, it is not just the box that we are born within.

All of us are exposed to experiences that might make them live the religion or get...

KING: I'm running out of time.

MANNING: One of the most important thins about religion is an encounter with God. It has to be a personal relationship with God. If I'm Muslim, if I'm Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, I encounter the Lord and this is real. And this reality -- no, to the person that experiences God, you can't take this away from me because I've experienced it.
As you can see, only the atheist (Johnson) directly answered the question, and admitted freely that her upbringing probably had a lot to do with her atheism.

The Catholic was just blubbering nonsense at the end.


Originally posted by Shera
Hope this question isn't considered a derail… If it is, feel free to ignore it.
Not at all, since it was part of the discussion panel, but even if it were a derail, it doesn't matter. I'm not one to insist on POT (Purity of Threads).

Originally posted by Shera
Mercutio -- were the dead panelists in one of the Monty Python movies? Sounds funny! I'd like to watch it.
It's from episode 36 (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode36.htm) of their BBC series, Monty Python's Flying Circus. A very short bit (naturally).

[chulbert]

I think the Rabbi sounded like a pretty reasonable, decent guy.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by chulbert
I think the Rabbi sounded like a pretty reasonable, decent guy.

Of course, he was working big on the defensive. When the opening volley is that "the Bible says Jews and Muslim aren't getting into heaven," you have to be ready to go.

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by Tricky
No, not completely. The evangelical in particular had problems. To counter the theodicy problem, he said that 911, like all evil in the world, came from men. When it was pointed out that the tsuami was in no way caused by men, he had to backtrack.
Good point, I missed that. I actually felt that the rabbi handled the theodicy problem the best. That may be a side-effect of the fact that at around the time the religion's literature was being redacted the Jewish people have already been on the losing end of at least two major wars (Babylonians and later the Romans).

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/timeline.html

That question [determinism]actually came up

As you can see, only the atheist (Johnson) directly answered the question, and admitted freely that her upbringing probably had a lot to do with her atheism.

The Catholic was just blubbering nonsense at the end.
Yeah I saw that.

What I was trying to get at though, was that most people are not going to be able to question the rationality of the belief system they were raised in for many reasons. Even if they do get to the point where they can question it privately, they may not go on to challenge it publicly because it would be too difficult to do so and still get along well with their family and community.

And yeah, I'm basing that on some anecdotal evidence -- mostly a few conversations with orthodox Jews (mostly women) after I decided to stop being orthodox.

It's from episode 36 (http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode36.htm) of their BBC series, Monty Python's Flying Circus. A very short bit (naturally).
Great web site! Further up I found some stuff from Woody Allen and Groucho Marx too. Thanks!

[Bandersnatch]

Though I'd point out (Quite predictably), that the Rapturies held a very diffrent view of events.

Rapture Ready. Who do you think won over there? (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=196040)

My Favorite from that thread. (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=2415695#post2415695)

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Of course, he was working big on the defensive. When the opening volley is that "the Bible says Jews and Muslim aren't getting into heaven," you have to be ready to go.

One of my co-workers gets the Washington Times, very is owned by the Moonies and it shows. They had a front page article about how liberals have misread Thomas's letters on seporation of church and state.

I wonder how long it's going to be before people realize that seporation of church and state is good not ideal, not just to protect secularist from religious laws but other denominations and religions from each other.

I don't think the Protestants would be happy if the laws of the country were being based purely on Catholic theology and vice-versa.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
One of my co-workers gets the Washington Times, very is owned by the Moonies and it shows. They had a front page article about how liberals have misread Thomas's letters on seporation of church and state.

I wonder how long it's going to be before people realize that seporation of church and state is good not ideal, not just to protect secularist from religious laws but other denominations and religions from each other.

I don't think the Protestants would be happy if the laws of the country were being based purely on Catholic theology and vice-versa.

I always like to point out that a lot of the "prayer in school" suits that have been filed were christian against christian. The recent one in Texas with the Texas football game thing was Mormons and Catholics v Baptists. They had objected because the prayer leader was elected by a vote, and they were in the minority at the school, so they never got to say the prayers they wanted.

So they sued the school, figuring if we can't say the prayers, then they can't either.

A great example of the power of the separation of church and state.

[Iamme]

I watched the show 1 1/2 times last night. (1/2 live...then waited up for and watched the entire repeat airing late last night.)

All I am going to say is that I smiled while watching it last night. My mom and dad (deeply religious) were watching I'm sure.

I reserve comment as I do not want to go to hell.:D

Carry on.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I always like to point out that a lot of the "prayer in school" suits that have been filed were christian against christian. The recent one in Texas with the Texas football game thing was Mormons and Catholics v Baptists. They had objected because the prayer leader was elected by a vote, and they were in the minority at the school, so they never got to say the prayers they wanted.

So they sued the school, figuring if we can't say the prayers, then they can't either.

A great example of the power of the separation of church and state.

If I remember correctly the original pray cases were filed by Jewish families, which lead to ban on school pray. It was O'Hair picked them up and pushed them all to the Supreme Court. Please, correct me if I got this wrong.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
If I remember correctly the original pray cases were filed by Jewish families, which lead to ban on school pray. It was O'Hair picked them up and pushed them all to the Supreme Court. Please, correct me if I got this wrong.

I think that is correct, although OHair that gets the publicity for it. But I do believe that the original cases were filed by religious folk.

[Synapse Fire]

Larry always struck me as pretty loopy. His closing statement gave me a chuckle:

KING: I'll close with the words from "Fiddler on the Roof" "to life, to life lachaim." Lachaim, lachaim to life.



He also indicated that he will have more shows devoted to this topic, I guess with his age and heart problems he's getting a tad concerned?

[seayakin]

At least the Rabbi will let atheists into heaven. As usual, I found the fundamentalist preacher most disturbing. You can do anything you want and get into heaven as long as you proclaim your faith in Jesus.

This reminds my of the "Life of Brian" when they are waiting in line to get crucified..

"Crucifixion?"

"Yes"

"Crucifixion?"

"Yes"

"Crucifixion?"

Eric Idol, "I just received a pardon from the governor"

just imagine waiting at the pearly gates

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"
"No"

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"
"No"

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"
"No"

"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"
"Yes"

[seayakin]

Just found this

source (http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-22.htm)

[jimmygun]

I noticed the atheist was the only one not in the studio. Just wondering that maybe she preferred it that way. I know I would.

[Synapse Fire]

Why? What would be the worst thing that they would do? Throw holy water on you?

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Shera
I think most people at JREFs subscribe to the philosophy of determinism? For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves? Most of my friends are atheist, agnostic, or non-practicing religious. Almost all were brought up believing in some flim flam or another; Buddha, Christ, Mohamed, etc. Of course I live in NYC where many people have immigrated from afar and find it easier to change beliefs without the peer/family pressure. I am a recovered Catholic and my nearest relative is 1000+ miles away, so I fit this same model.

Originally posted by Synapse Fire
Why? What would be the worst thing that they would do? Throw holy water on you? You do realize this is the same group of people that fly planes into buildings?

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by Synapse Fire
Why? What would be the worst thing that they would do? Throw holy water on you?

What would be the worst thing they would do? Oh, maybe I could be beheaded. Or crucified. Or stoned to death. Or or or...

The religious communitee has many many ways of dealing with atheists. Especially if they are in the majority!

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I noticed the atheist was the only one not in the studio. Just wondering that maybe she preferred it that way. I know I would.

From the transcript, it seems the vague "spiritualist" person was also in another studio somewhere.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
You do realize this is the same group of people that fly planes into buildings? If you are going to generalize out this far (after all, none of them even condoned that action, let alone praised it), you might as well take one more step and include all people instead of just all religious people. We--people--are the group that flies planes into buildings. If that realization offends you, it should probably offend the religious panelists as well.

[IllegalArgument]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If you are going to generalize out this far (after all, none of them even condoned that action, let alone praised it), you might as well take one more step and include all people instead of just all religious people. We--people--are the group that flies planes into buildings. If that realization offends you, it should probably offend the religious panelists as well.

You can believe in a lot of non-sense and not be a fanatic. Fanatics are the ones that fly planes into buildings.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
You can believe in a lot of non-sense and not be a fanatic. Fanatics are the ones that fly planes into buildings. At the risk of appearing to condone (which I do not)...

What is it that makes a Fanatic? Fanatics are people, too. (I am tempted to write "Hath not a Fanatic eyes? Hath not a Fanatic hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a non-fanatic is?" But I won't.)

Just as it is easy to blame religion for flying planes into buildings (and thus safely distance me from them), it is easy to blame fanaticism (and again, feel safe that I could never do something like that). Milgram's "Obedience" experiments taught us that we, not just they, can be led to do terrible things.

I think the difficult, sobering, and ultimately most productive path is to admit that it is within the capacity of humankind to be cruel, and to lead others (and be led by others) to perform cruel acts. With this realization comes another realization: that we must find out how we are so led, and take steps to avoid it. We should look at the people who did fly planes into buildings, and see what it is that made them do it and not other religious people, or even other fanatics. The more we understand instead of merely label, the better we can prevent such cruelty in the future.

Fortunately, it is also within the capacity of humankind to be kind, to be helpful, to be loving, strong, etc....Most religious people are. Most fanatics are, at least at times (I am speaking broadly here--remember that "fan" is short for fanatic, and many of us humans are fans of particular sports teams, celebrities, etc.). We can be fanatical in our devotion to good causes as well as bad.

[IllegalArgument]

Of course people are capable of many good and bad things. I think it would be interesting to try and define a fanatic.

Absolute ideology is usually the thing I look for, people trying to hammer the square pegs of reality into their round ideological holes. Of these kinds of folks there is a small, hopeful very small, subgroup that are willing to violently enforce their ideals.

At least that's how I see things.

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Of course people are capable of many good and bad things. I think it would be interesting to try and define a fanatic.

Absolute ideology is usually the thing I look for, people trying to hammer the square pegs of reality into their round ideological holes. Of these kinds of folks there is a small, hopeful very small, subgroup that are willing to violently enforce their ideals.
Under the right circumstances we are all capable of doing great harm. And even under silly circumstances 66% of us on average are capable of doing great harm. That's what the
Milgram's Obedience Experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) , repeated around the world with similar results, provided evidence for.

Originally posted by Mercutio
With this realization comes another realization: that we must find out how we are so led, and take steps to avoid it.Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?

Teaching critical thinking with a healthy dose of skepticism and even cynicism might be a good start. However, is there actual consensus vs. lip service in our communities and families (around the world) that this is something that they really want to teach children or even adults? And even if there is, how many people really have those skills who can teach them?

Your post made a great point and was beautifully written -- but unfortunately this forum has a small readership :(

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Shera

Any suggestions on how to accomplish this? I am working on it.

My first words to 2 senior-level classes this semester were "the objective of this course...is to change the world." And it really is.

I will write more on this sometime soon. I cannot right now, for reasons I won't go into right now, but which are almost completely unrelated to this forum.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Who is this Commercial Break, and why is he given so much time when he has so little to say?

[ReFLeX]

MACARTHUR (Re: babies who die): ... And as I told you, when we met the first time after 9/11, and you said, what happened to that baby at the bottom of that tower? And I said, instant heaven.
Now I know why you should dash babies against the rocks. Save them a lot of time and temptation...

Personally, I think Johnson could have done much better. Most notably when she says that "of course" she is atheist, since her parents were atheists, as if accepting your parents values was a given. This also suggests that atheism is less of a rational (non-)conclusion than just a continuation of values handed down from a fringe sect.
...I also don't think that determinism has anything to do with whether you accept your parent's beliefs or not, at least not any more so than every other choice you make...

ETA: Also, I am skeptical of her statement that no Jesus Christ existed. Does anyone know about Jesus' existence actually being established historically?

[Kiless]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Of course people are capable of many good and bad things. I think it would be interesting to try and define a fanatic.

We did my dear - I agree that fanatic and fan derive from the same source - here's a link to my personal experience with a fan:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870792757&highlight=fanatic+bowie#post1870792757

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Shera
Any suggestions on how to accomplish this?


Heh, this is fun. Linky linky linky...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53586&highlight=athon+education

I mention my own efforts in the thread too, but I think Athon's on a roll. :)

Speaking of which, better bump that thread if you didn't know about it...

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I am working on it.

My first words to 2 senior-level classes this semester were "the objective of this course...is to change the world." And it really is.

I will write more on this sometime soon.
I look forward to it! :) What are the names of your 2 senior-level classes by the way?

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Personally, I think Johnson could have done much better. Most notably when she says that "of course" she is atheist, since her parents were atheists, as if accepting your parents values was a given. This also suggests that atheism is less of a rational (non-)conclusion than just a continuation of values handed down from a fringe sect.
...I also don't think that determinism has anything to do with whether you accept your parent's beliefs or not, at least not any more so than every other choice you make...

So do you believe our choices are due 100% to free will?

Personally, I think that what we can think is possible is shaped by both our genetics and environment. The latter includes everthing from who our parents and friends are, what country and era we live in, how well educated we are, our SES, our previous experiences, etc.

However, I also think that we have the ability to think past our environmental influences (but quite frankly will also be limited in what we can choose by our environmental influences), that we can exercise free will but that we don't exercise free will in a vacuum of capabilities (genetics) or influences (environment). The closest school of thought to what I believe is compatibilism.

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by Kiless
Heh, this is fun. Linky linky linky...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53586&highlight=athon+education

I mention my own efforts in the thread too, but I think Athon's on a roll. :)

Speaking of which, better bump that thread if you didn't know about it... Hi Kiless, thanks for the link. :) I don't always read that forum (as I just proved)...

Your post looked very interesting and I look forward to following up on all the links it included.(I think you were on a roll too!) Philosophy for kids sounds like a great idea!

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Shera
So do you believe our choices are due 100% to free will?No, but I don't think that either philosophy is really supportable by evidence. I may be mistaken. As an opinion, I tend to lean towards determinism. But really I just wanted to say about this:For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves?This kind of question does not apply to determinism any more than "What did you have for breakfast this morning?", and thus it is not really valuable to examine it in that context. It is not as though your parents' ideology is the only possible influence on your religious belief. Unless you can show otherwise...

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If you are going to generalize out this far (after all, none of them even condoned that action, let alone praised it), you might as well take one more step and include all people instead of just all religious people. We--people--are the group that flies planes into buildings. If that realization offends you, it should probably offend the religious panelists as well. Do you not think it a fair generalization that "people heavily and easily influenced by religion have, in general, lower critical thinking skills"?

Originally posted by Mercutio
With this realization comes another realization: that we must find out how we are so led, and take steps to avoid it.I do believe that increased awareness of the process by which people are duped, along with well developed critical thinking skills would greatly reduce this phenomenon.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
Do you not think it a fair generalization that "people heavily and easily influenced by religion have, in general, lower critical thinking skills"? I think you are strongly underestimating social influence here. There is hardly anyone that applies critical thinking to everything, it would cripple them as functioning members of society. Many people can simply not apply critical thinking to principles they uphold as sacred, since it would violate a norm that had been enforced in them since birth. If raised in an environment that is conducive to this specific dogma, people can grow up thinking that the tenets of religion are impregnable, even if they regularly question other aspects of superstition and pseudoscience.
...it could happen to you...
I do believe that increased awareness of the process by which people are duped, along with well developed critical thinking skills would greatly reduce this phenomenon. What phenomenon? Suicide in the name of God? Japanese kamikaze pilots didn't need religion to crash their planes...

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
No, but I don't think that either philosophy is really supportable by evidence. I may be mistaken.
Hmm, now that you mention that - I do recall that there were many studies done on identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) separated at birth by adoption. I don't recall what the results were specifically -- except the researchers found surprising similarities.

As an opinion, I tend to lean towards determinism. But really I just wanted to say about this:This kind of question

Posted by Shera
"Just curious. I think most people at JREFs subscribe to the philosophy of determinism? For those of you who are determinists, how would you expect most people who are born to families with religious beliefs not to end up with the same beliefs themselves?"

does not apply to determinism any more than "What did you have for breakfast this morning?",
Don't be so sure! :) Did you have steak & kidney pie with black pudding for breakfast today? Or a tomato/cucumber/pepper salad, tossed with olive oil and lemon juice? Perhaps, instead, you had rice with some meat? Were any of those possibilities even on your radar range? :)

Our environment has more to do with our breakfast choices than anything else.

... It is not as though your parents' ideology is the only possible influence on your religious belief. ...
No, of course not. In my first post I should have substituted environment for parents. As I think anyone can clearly tell from my post made earlier today -- I believe there are many factors to our environmental influences -- not just one or two.

In another post responding to Gulliamo you also said this…
"I think you are strongly underestimating social influence here. There is hardly anyone that applies critical thinking to everything, it would cripple them as functioning members of society. Many people can simply not apply critical thinking to principles they uphold as sacred, since it would violate a norm that had been enforced in them since birth. If raised in an environment that is conducive to this specific dogma, people can grow up thinking that the tenets of religion are impregnable, even if they regularly question other aspects of superstition and pseudoscience.

...it could happen to you..."
It almost seems that you are arguing both sides of the fence ReFLeX!
Sometimes I think you just like to debate! :D

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Shera
Hmm, now that you mention that - I do recall that there were many studies done on identical twins (who are genetic clones of each other) separated at birth by adoption. I don't recall what the results were specifically -- except the researchers found surprising similarities.
...right, but you do know, the philosophy of determinism doesn't really care whether causes are genetic, environmental, or whatever. They're all just causes and effects.
Don't be so sure! :) Did you have steak & kidney pie with black pudding for breakfast today? Or a tomato/cucumber/pepper salad, tossed with olive oil and lemon juice? Perhaps, instead, you had rice with some meat? Were any of those possibilities even on your radar range? :)

Our environment has more to do with our breakfast choices than anything else. The range of possibilities open to me was arguably a result of earlier causes, just like with religion... where is the difference between the two? I'm not sure you completely grasp the determinism concept.
No, of course not. In my first post I should have substituted environment for parents. As I think anyone can clearly tell from my post made earlier today -- I believe there are many factors to our environmental influences -- not just one or two.I'm not sure what difference it would make...?

In another post responding to Gulliamo you also said this…

It almost seems that you are arguing both sides of the fence ReFLeX!
Sometimes I think you just like to debate! :D
I just call for skepticism when needed!
But Shera: Even if I were to accept or reject determinism, I don't see it as having real-world implications. I think you are confusing determinism with the nature side of the "nature vs. nurture" debate, at least somewhat. Whether identical twins have similar traits or are radically different has little bearing on determinism, since it holds that different experiences, brain chemicals, physical changes and anything else conceivable to separate the twins are just another part of cause and effect. In determinism, "environment" includes everything with any chance of having an effect on the entity in question. At least this is my understanding...

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
I think you are strongly underestimating social influence here. No. I am specifically pointing to the "social influence" that puts faith above critical thinking!
Originally posted by ReFLeX
There is hardly anyone that applies critical thinking to everything, it would cripple them as functioning members of society. Maybe. But when people do not apply critical thinking to matters of life and death society has a problem. Obviously, I do not suggest that people "critically think" about strawberry vs. grape jam on their toast in the morning. But when someone says, "Hey, you should kill abortion doctors in the name of God" then you REALLY need to step back and think for a moment!
Originally posted by ReFLeX
Many people can simply not apply critical thinking to principles they uphold as sacred, Cannot? Or do not? Or will not?
Originally posted by ReFLeX
since it would violate a norm that had been enforced in them since birth. If raised in an environment that is conducive to this specific dogma, people can grow up thinking that the tenets of religion are impregnable, even if they regularly question other aspects of superstition and pseudoscience. I do not accept the position that people are helpless products of their environment. If we, as a human species, will not rise above our preconceived notions, our environmental influences, and our long held myths and superstitions; if we will not step back and examine what our beliefs are and decide if they are valid then I fear the Rapture Ready folk may be correct. We are doomed.
Originally posted by Shera
It almost seems that you are arguing both sides of the fence ReFLeX! Flex- If you are merely trying to play devil's advocate I would appreciate it if you would state as much.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
No. I am specifically pointing to the "social influence" that puts faith above critical thinking!
Religion by itself is not the social influence I refer to. Sunday school is. Religious media are. Affirming parents are. Currently held theories would say that both normative social influence (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/normative_social_influence.htm) and informational social influence (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/informational_social_influence.htm) reinforce religious values in the mind of susceptible people. Normative, because their family, and often their friends have the same 'faith'. It would be deviating not to believe. Informational, because, as you notice in the link, this influence most readily occurs when the situation is ambiguous. What could be more ambiguous than the afterlife, or questions about our origin and meaning? People see (accurately, or not) that religion fills these holes in our knowledge, so they grasp at it. Is this implausible?

Maybe. But when people do not apply critical thinking to matters of life and death society has a problem. Obviously, I do not suggest that people "critically think" about strawberry vs. grape jam on their toast in the morning. But when someone says, "Hey, you should kill abortion doctors in the name of God" then you REALLY need to step back and think for a moment! Agreed. And we'd all love people to think critically where it counts. But as so much heated debate has shown, humans are all capable of getting ahold of an idea and then staunchly defending it, even if it is sometimes misguided. And perhaps there is some detectable difference between people who may let their actions get out of hand (re: Pro-Lifers) and people who will not, but that hasn't turned out to be IQ or education. At least not in any study that I'm aware of. Think about war... "You should kill German, Iraqi, Confederate soldiers, because why?" In the name of nationalism? Because they disagree with you? Not every soldier is going to think about whether he supports his leader's position. He's going to fight alongside his brothers and neighbours because he thinks he should, or that he doesn't have a choice...

Cannot? Or do not? Or will not? My apologies, I could have been more clear. Do not. They can and will apply it, I am an example, but the most probable way to bring this about is not antagonism. I don't know that there is a formula to inject critical thinking into the average naive person. Many people are too apathetic, or ironically, skeptical about anything that challenges their beliefs.
I do not accept the position that people are helpless products of their environment.That's good, neither do I.
If we, as a human species, will not rise above our preconceived notions, our environmental influences, and our long held myths and superstitions; if we will not step back and examine what our beliefs are and decide if they are valid then I fear the Rapture Ready folk may be correct. We are doomed.
Flex- If you are merely trying to play devil's advocate I would appreciate it if you would state as much. You may be exaggerating. Humans and superstition, even at the highest levels of society, have co-existed for many millenia, and it's unfortunate but probable that this will continue to be the case. I must stress that while I do not think people are helpless peons, the social influences I have mentioned can be very powerful. For example, consider the Order of the Solar Temple (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple), where a mayor, a journalist and a sales manager were among the credible people to be convinced that they should kill themselves and rise to the star Sirius. This didn't even require that the victims be primed to the superstition. And yes, perhaps embedded critical thinking skills would be the ideal counter to these kinds of ordeals. But the idea is just that, more ideal than practical; and what's important is that we find a way to protect people while we are busy perfecting humanity...

[Kaylee]

Shera:
"I believe there are many factors to our environmental influences --not just one or two."

ReFLeX (in response to above):
"I'm not sure what difference it would make...?"

ReFLeX:
"In determinism, "environment" includes everything with any chance of having an effect on the entity in question. At least this is my understanding..."

Shera:
"It almost seems that you are arguing both sides of the fence ReFLeX!"

Gulliamo (in response to above):
"Flex- If you are merely trying to play devil's advocate I would appreciate it if you would state as much."

Same here. {Shrug}

[Kaylee]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I do believe that increased awareness of the process by which people are duped, along with well developed critical thinking skills would greatly reduce this phenomenon.

Sounds good. I would also suggest that analyzing (an integral part of critical thinking) should include carefully measuring people's words against their actions.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Shera
Shera:
"I believe there are many factors to our environmental influences --not just one or two."

ReFLeX (in response to above):
"I'm not sure what difference it would make...?"

ReFLeX:
"In determinism, "environment" includes everything with any chance of having an effect on the entity in question. At least this is my understanding..."I really and truly don't see the conflict here. I said I didn't think it would make a difference if you substitute "parents" for "environment"... the are both just names for influences on the stack. As I've explained, environment may even include parents under its scope.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Religion by itself is not the social influence I refer to. Sunday school is. Religious media are. Affirming parents are. Currently held theories would say that both normative social influence (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/normative_social_influence.htm) and informational social influence (http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/informational_social_influence.htm) reinforce religious values in the mind of susceptible people. Normative, because their family, and often their friends have the same 'faith'. It would be deviating not to believe. Informational, because, as you notice in the link, this influence most readily occurs when the situation is ambiguous. What could be more ambiguous than the afterlife, or questions about our origin and meaning? People see (accurately, or not) that religion fills these holes in our knowledge, so they grasp at it. Is this implausible? I do not disagree that religion and its offspring (Sunday school, religious media) are not partially to blame. But I still maintain that a healthy does of critical thinking, whether injected or self-taught, would go a long way to combat much of the intolerance, bigotry, violence, and suffering in the world.
Originally posted by ReFLeX
Think about war... "You should kill German, Iraqi, Confederate soldiers, because why?" In the name of nationalism? Because they disagree with you? Not every soldier is going to think about whether he supports his leader's position. He's going to fight alongside his brothers and neighbors because he thinks he should, or that he doesn't have a choice... That is a really interesting point! A good topic for another thread maybe? Hint hint.

Originally posted by ReFLeX
My apologies, I could have been more clear. Do not. They can and will apply it, I am an example, but the most probable way to bring this about is not antagonism. I don't know that there is a formula to inject critical thinking into the average naive person. Many people are too apathetic, or ironically, skeptical about anything that challenges their beliefs.What do you think is the best way? Antagonism may not be the best but it is often the most fun. :-D

Originally posted by ReFLeX
You may be exaggerating. Humans and superstition, even at the highest levels of society, have co-existed for many millennia, and it's unfortunate but probable that this will continue to be the case. Of course I was exaggerating. None the less, at no other time in history has a single human had the capability to cause so much damage. We live in an age of "super-empowered humans" and it will only get worse as our technology gets better. We must, as a people, keep our thinking abilities and moral compasses up to speed with our technology. If I'm starting to sound "doomsday-ish" it is unintentional.

[Kopji]

The show was repeated this evening. Maybe they are tiring of their non stop Catholic coverage.

Only the four men were in the studio with Larry, the two women were linked in via remote.

The evangelist and rabbi did most of the talking. One or two had a book to promote. Listening to the spiritualist lady was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard.

I think the atheist did well. Claiming Jesus did not exist seemed to be a provocative idea ignored.

Atheists have more to say about death than gets said. I think it shortchanges people with gruff things like "when you're dead that's it". There is a natural sense in which we arrive and leave like the rest of the universe. We are a part of that beauty and science. It is true without believing we are skipping with our dead pets in a heavenly meadow, and true without calling us meatsacks. (paraphrasing atheist bluntness)

All in all an ok show. I'd prefer a more fair ratio of one atheist to 100 ministers though. :)

[mist]

I enjoyed reading the transcript.

I think its just funny to know that from the religious leaders present there only one can be right, in other words the others are going to hell. Even though having dedicated their lives to advocating their believes.

I think that if I would have grown up with very orthodox parents I might have been a strong religious believer now, my self proclaimed intelligence now does not give me a "free" card. However, I do think it would have seriously undermined my critical thinking.